A Comparison of John Stuart Mill and Immanuel Kants Ethical Theories :: Societal Order Universability

Compargon wedge and Kants ethical theories which makes a meliorate societal order? John Stuart Mill (1808-73) believed in an ethical system receiptn as utilitarianism. There are many formulation of this theory. nonpareil such is, Everyone should venture in such a way to crop the largest possibly balance of good over evil for everyone involved. However, good is a relative term. What is good? Utilitarians disagreed on this subject. Mill made a note between happiness and sheer sensual pleasure. He defines happiness in terms of higher order pleasure (i.e. social enjoyments, intellectual). In his Utilitarianism (1861), Mill described this principle as followsAccording to the Greatest Happiness pattern The ultimate end, end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are wanted (whether we are considering our own good or that of other people), is an existence loose as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible enjoyments.Therefore, based on this statem ent, three ideas may be identify (1) The goodness of an deed may be determined by the consequences of that act. (2) Consequences are determined by the amount of happiness or unhappiness caused. (3) A good man is one who considers the other mans pleasure (or pain) as equally as his own. Each mortals happiness is equally important.Mill believed that a free act is not an undetermined act. It is determined by the unconstrained choice of the person performing the act. Either external or internal forces compel an servile(prenominal) act. Mill also determined that every situation depends on how you salute the situation and that you are only responsible for your feelings and exercises. You decide how you feel near what you think you saw.Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) had an interesting ethical system. It is based on a persuasion that the reason is the final authority for morality. Actions of any sort, he believed, must be undertaken from a sense of duty dictated by reason, and no action performed for expediency or solely in obedience to law or custom can be regarded as moral. A moral act is an act done for the right reasons. Kant would argue that to make a call for the wrong reason is not moral - you might as rise not make the promise. You must have a duty order inside of you or it will not come through in your actions otherwise. Our reasoning ability will always allow us to know what our duty is.